UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN OBANDO-ROMERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00381-REP)
Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 24, 2007
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E.
Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Sara E.
Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Bonnie B. Silcox, Third
Year Intern, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Obando-Romero pled guilty to simple assault on a
federal officer, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111(a) (West Supp. 2007) (Count
Two), and possession of contraband in prison, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1791(a)(2) (2000) (Count Three), and was sentenced to forty-one
months imprisonment. Obando-Romero appeals his sentence,
contending that his sentence was unreasonable because the district
court applied a two-level enhancement for bodily injury. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A2.4(b)(2) (2005). We affirm.
During a search which revealed that he was in possession
of marijuana, federal inmate Obando-Romero elbowed Correctional
Officer Doyle Cox in the face, breaking his glasses. Cox suffered
abrasions on his nose and cheeks, and subsequently developed a
black eye. At the sentencing hearing, over Obando-Romero’s
objection, the district court determined that Cox’s injury was
sufficient to warrant the enhancement.
Application Note 1 to § 2A2.4 provides that the term
“bodily injury,” as used in § 2A2.4, is defined in the commentary
to USSG § 1B1.1. Application Note 1(B) to § 1B1.1 defines “bodily
injury” as “any significant injury; e.g., an injury that is painful
and obvious, or is of a type for which medical attention ordinarily
would be sought.” We review the district court’s determination
that a significant injury was sustained under the clearly erroneous
- 2 -
standard. United States v. Lancaster, 6 F.3d 208, 210 (4th Cir.
1993); United States v. Isaacs, 947 F.2d 112, 114 (4th Cir. 1991).
Here, the court viewed a photograph of Cox which showed
his black eye. The injury was obvious and the court could safely
infer that it was painful. We conclude that the district court did
not clearly err in determining that the enhancement applied.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -